Yearly Archives: 2015

The official creator credit for Batman goes contractually to Bob Kane. I don't know anyone outside Kane's family who doesn't think a man named Bill Finger is as deserving, if not more so, of that recognition.

Finger died in 1974. Some years later, Kane wrote that he wished he'd put his former collaborator's name on the feature but that never happened. Kane died in 1998 and since then, Kane has continued to be credited as sole creator and his reputation has plunged. It seems to me he's now more often mentioned as a guy who screwed over his partner than as a guy who gave the world one of its great fantasy characters.

Last Comic-Con, I had the pleasure to meet and appear with Athena Finger, the granddaughter of Bill Finger. She's fighting for her grandpa's honor, assisted by many of us. Here's an article about her and that fight.

I posted this on 8/11/02 right after watching columnist Robert Novak on the CNN series, Crossfire. Mr. Novak died in 2009. Crossfire was canceled in 2005, came back in 2013 and was canceled again in 2014. You'll notice I say in the piece that 20% to 30% of Americans smoke. Those are 2002 numbers. The current number (for 2012, the most recent year for which data is available) is 18%. That's according to the American Cancer Society…

I don't smoke. I've never smoked. Not a puff, at least not directly. I have, however, ingested enough second-hand smoke to, in the opinion of a leading respiratory physician, do some serious damage to my nostrils. But I, myself, have never smoked.

I've never smoked for pretty much the same reason I've never taken a ball peen hammer and hit myself repeatedly over the head. Both seem like enormously unappealing, self-destructive things to do to one's self. Logically, of course, I know that so many intelligent people have smoked and/or continue to smoke that it must have some positive reward but I just don't understand it. Actually, most of the smokers I know seem to regret they ever started.

Anyway, the point is that I don't smoke and I hate being around smoke. When people around me insist that they have the right to smoke around me, I used to insist that — in that case — I had the same right to vomit on them. One time, years ago, I actually did. I have a hunch that, thereafter, that smoker was a little more prudent about where he lit up.

All of this said, I find myself in this curious conundrum: I more or less agree with those who oppose a ban on smoking in certain public places, such as restaurants. Yesterday watching Crossfire, I found myself in general accord with Robert Novak and those who are arguing against New York's pending law that would forbid all smoking in eateries. I don't want to be sitting in the Carnegie Deli, partaking of a side of Marlboro aroma along with my corned beef sandwich…but I feel the greater damage may lie in allowing government to get this deep into what could and should be a market-determined decision.

I think the law should be not that smoking is banned in restaurants (as it is in many cities) but that those that did allow it would have to post a conspicuous "Smoking Allowed" sign out front and perhaps mention it in all advertising larger than a certain size. Folks who smoke could go to these places. Folks like me could avoid them. Eventually, as business thrived or suffered, restaurants would configure their policies to serve the public in proper proportion. Surveys suggest that anywhere from 20% to 30% of Americans enjoy (if enjoyment, it be) the occasional smoke. I suspect that if what I propose were to be enacted, most neighborhoods would wind up with 10% to 15% "Smoking Restaurants." The reason the percentage would be lower would be because (a) even many smokers prefer not to eat around it and (b) when a non-smoker and a smoker dined together, it would have to be at a non-smoking establishment.

Now, I already know some of the objections and will attempt to answer them here…

It's unfair to waiters and other employees to make them inhale all that second-hand smoke.

Absolutely. And I am not suggesting that a restaurant that is now non-smoking should be allowed to suddenly let everyone light up Marlboros. I think the default would be non-smoking and that an establishment would have to give its patrons and employees ample notice before allowing it. Since waiting tables is largely a transitory existence, that would give employees time to find employment elsewhere. It's like if a vegan restaurant were to decide to start serving Prime Rib. The staff in such places is usually anti-meat, and they have every right to be anti-meat. They just shouldn't be able to prevent the owner from changing his cuisine.

This kind of thing has been tried with "smoking airlines" and other establishments that went bust, and even a non-smoking casino in Las Vegas that went bankrupt.

The casino was already in deep financial trouble before they tried that policy and the airlines that have tried it have been marginal, as well. But even if every business that permits smoking goes broke and no "smoking" businesses remain, fine. Let that be determined by market demand, not by government oversight.

Restaurants in some cities tried having smoking areas and it didn't work. The smoke kept drifting into the non-smoking area.

That's not what I'm suggesting at all. A restaurant would have to be one or the other and could not try splitting one business into two so they could have it both ways. Hotels, let's note, seem to be doing okay with smoking rooms and non-smoking rooms on separate floors…and occasionally they convert one into the other, depending on what their customers seem to demand. Why couldn't restaurants be one or the other?

If your favorite restaurant went smoking, you wouldn't be able to go to it.

True. It would cease to be my favorite restaurant. It would also cease if it purged its menu of everything but cole slaw. But so what? They have the right to do that and I can find another favorite restaurant. Should the government step in and insist they keep my favorite items on the menu?

But this is different. This is about protecting the health of people.

Which people? Non-smokers? I'm all for protecting their health, especially since I am one. But if we have clearly-labelled smoking restaurants and they go in, isn't that the same as if they go to a hotel and ask for a smoking room? Should we be protecting them from that? As for protecting the health of smokers, what difference does it make if they can smoke in a restaurant when they can go outside and smoke, smoke at home, smoke in their cars, etc.?

As I keep saying, I hate smoke. But I think it's important to be consistent to one's principles and one of mine is that people have the right to do whatever they want to themselves as long as it doesn't harm others. I think you have the right to ingest alcohol or drugs, so long as you don't go out and drive. I think you have the right to kill yourself. And I certainly think you have the right to smoke so we shouldn't enact unnecessary laws to make you a social pariah, especially when folks like me can avoid the smoke with minimal effort. I really feel strongly about this.

On the other hand, any time I find myself agreeing with Robert Novak, I figure my opinion is at least a little suspect.

I want to get one of these and use it to turn the pages of a book about Rube Goldberg. (Thanks, Shelly Goldstein…)

We're in for a new round of speculation on whether Comic-Con International will stay in San Diego or whether it will relocate in some other city. Under the current contract, they would be there for 2016 and then…

Well, I think they'll stay. The only way the con would move is if the folks they dicker with in San Diego don't come up with a competitive offer. If that's the case, I can see the convention moving to Anaheim. I don't think it would be a good idea but I can see it as possible. I think a move to Los Angeles would be a disaster. The convention center here is terrible and accommodations are worse.

This article notes that Anaheim has more than 13,000 hotel rooms within a mile of the convention center, whereas San Diego has about 11,000 rooms close by. Ah, but as the article doesn't point out, in this case 11,000 is a lot more than 13,000 because the 13,000 rooms in Anaheim are full of families going to Disneyland and other local amusements. That's especially true in July, which is when Comic-Con is traditionally held.

In San Diego, we're the biggest thing they have and the entire city is built around making us feel welcome. In Anaheim or L.A., we wouldn't be the most important thing. We might not even be in the Top Ten. And the traffic? Oy.

For years I've done this joke here sometime between January and May. It's that if you need a parking space for Comic-Con in July, leave now. If Comic-Con does move to Anaheim in 2017 and you're going to need a parking space, I would leave now.

Here, illustrated nicely with clips from his films, is a 1962 interview with one of America's great comic actors and filmmakers, Buster Keaton. The interviewer is one of my favorite authors, Studs Terkel…

Jack Paar hosted his last Tonight Show on March 29, 1962 and Johnny Carson hosted his first on October 1st of that year.

Why the gap? Carson still had several months on his contract to host the afternoon game show Who Do You Trust? on ABC. It was commonly reported that the network refused to let him out early but as I understand it, it never really got to the point of ABC saying yes or no. Don Fedderson, who produced Who Do You Trust?, didn't want to let Johnny go before he had to…so that was that. By some accounts, ABC told Johnny, "If it were up to us, we'd be glad to let you go," which of course doesn't mean they really would have.

So how did NBC fill those twenty-six weeks? With guest hosts. The program was hosted during that period by Art Linkletter (4 weeks), Merv Griffin (4 weeks), Hugh Downs (2 weeks), Joey Bishop (2 weeks), Bob Cummings, Jack Carter, Jan Murray, Peter Lind Hayes, Soupy Sales, Mort Sahl, Steve Lawrence, Jerry Lewis, Jimmy Dean, Arlene Francis, Jack E. Leonard, Groucho Marx, Hal March and Donald O'Connor.

Those shows are apparently lost. I saw one of them. My parents let me stay up late on the Friday night that concluded Soupy Sales's week and I recall being disappointed that it was not my Soupy. He did it in a suit without puppets, pies or his signature routines.

The 26 weeks of fill-in hosts reportedly disappointed most folks. Merv Griffin and Jerry Lewis both did well enough with theirs to get offers to do their own talk shows but extant reviews and memories suggest most of the hosts didn't make much effort to do anything more than plug — in some cases, relentlessly — their other gigs. Carson was reportedly so distressed at what he saw when he tuned in that he repeatedly called NBC and warned them those hosts were killing the time slot he was about to inherit by filling it with commercials instead of entertainment.

Why do I bring this up now? Well, I'm watching with some fascination the fill-in hosts of The Late Late Show on CBS while it awaits the arrival of its new host, James Corden. Drew Carey hosted the first week and he did talk a lot about The Price is Right — and brought along his announcer from that show, George Gray, who contributed a couple of great quips. Carey had some sharp monologues but the rest of the program, he acted like he had someone waiting for him in a restaurant across the street and was in a hurry to get to them.

Mr. Carey, of course, is not auditioning for much of anything else. Monday and Tuesday this week, Jim Gaffigan hosted and he brought along his whole family. His wife co-hosted and he had his five children involved. His guests Monday were the stars of his upcoming sitcom on TV Land and they spent most of the time plugging that enterprise. I generally like Gaffigan as a stand-up but if I were James Corden, I would have made one of those calls like Johnny did.

Last night, the Gaffigan family turned to other topics and delivered a decent show, mostly due to funny contributions from their lead guest, Sarah Silverman. Tonight, they have on Adam Goldberg, David Koechner and Tig Notaro, and the rest of the week is hosted by Judd Apatow, probably with none of his relatives assisting.

In the meantime, CBS seems to be swapping hosts around madly. The taping schedule said that Billy Gardell was hosting two shows taping next Monday and Tuesday, while Kunal Nayaar was to host three shows taping Wednesday through Friday. But the current broadcast schedule says Monday and Tuesday are hosted by Regis Philbin, Wednesday and Thursday are Whitney Cummings and Friday is Adam Pally. Up until yesterday, the announced schedule said Philbin on Monday and the rest of the week, TBD.

The broadcast schedule says that Nayaar is hosting February 23, 26 and 27 while Gardell is hosting February 24 and 25. Drew Carey returns March 2 through 6 and they already have three shows with him they taped last week. It's very confusing and I'm wondering if they're really changing things around on the fly like this or if the announced schedules have just been premature and inaccurate.

As a longtime fan of talk shows, I'm curious as to what all these different folks will do with the opportunity. I'm guessing Regis isn't auditioning for anything. I also note that he isn't taking any chances, guest-wise. Monday, he has Martin Short, Alan Alda, Tony Danza and Susan Sarandon. A rhesus monkey could host a decent talk show with just the first two of those folks as guests, let alone all four. (Mr. Apatow is taking out the same kind of insurance. Thursday night, he has Adam Sandler, Lena Dunham and Maria Bamford; Friday night is Garry Shandling, Jeff Goldblum and Ryan Adams. In ten years, Craig Ferguson never had lineups like these.)

But Regis aside, some of the other hosts doubtlessly see this as a chance to show what they might do with a regular show of this kind…or even this one if Mr. Corden crashes and explodes. I wonder if any of them have the power to reshape the show for a night or two into something different or if the people in charge are demanding consistency.

That would be a shame because the Talk Show World really needs someone to come in and do a show that isn't just a guy behind a desk turning to someone in the guest chair and saying, "So, tell me about your new movie." I hope James Corden will be that but it would be nice to see someone before him seize that opportunity.

The folks at Politifact annotate and fact-check the President's State of the Union Address.

I thought it was a pretty good speech. Obviously, the Republicans didn't. I don't think they did themselves a lot of favor with swing voters by sitting there, scowling and refusing to clap for radical ideas like women getting paid the same as men for equal work. But then I get the feeling Republicans aren't going to worry about swing voters until a week or so after they nominate a candidate…which is about the time Democrats will start forgetting about them.

I've given up all beverages except for water and water flavored with this stuff…but when I was a kid, I drank tons of soda and kids' drinks. I already told you about what Flav-R Straws did to milk. Let's discuss what Fizzie's tablets did to H2O. This originally ran here on 2/25/02…

Let's have a Happy Fizzies party! No, on second thought, let's save our DNA and stomachs and not have a Happy Fizzies Party! I just came across these rather old pictures of a product I always felt should have, "Not to be taken internally" stamped on the outside. Back when I was a kid, a Fizzies drink was fun to make. You dropped a tablet into a glass of H2O and it bubbled like Alka-Seltzer, turning the water — and if you touched the tablet, your fingers, as well — orange or red or whatever the operative, alleged flavor was. The fun, however, stopped when the tablet finishing dissolving and you sorta, kinda had to drink the stuff.

That was the part I didn't like. I'm not sure I ever finished an entire tumbler, even of the "Imitation Orange Flavor" variety…and that was my favorite. As it turned out, this was a good thing. Later in life, I was diagnosed as having a very bad reaction to any kind of artificial sweetener. Had Fizzies been more tasty, I might have ingested more of them and done God-knows-what to my body. A "Happy Fizzies Party" — as the commercials kept urging us to have — could have been like some sort of 5th grade mutual suicide pact.

That was back when the product contained — as per the package depicted here — sucaryl and saccharin, and we thought those were oh-so-much better for you than nasty ol' sugar or corn syrup sweetener. Today, they still make Fizzies and the key ingredient is Nutrasweet, which has about the same effect on me as hemlock did on Socrates, only it probably doesn't taste as good.

It's odd that I have such fond memories of something that tasted so awful. I especially enjoyed the time I took about 20 Fizzies tablets and hid them in the pockets of my friend Sidney Passey's swimming trunks. Sidney put on the trunks, jumped in the pool and his shorts suddenly began to foam, as a rainbow of colors emanated from his crotch area. He later thanked me and said it gave him his first erection. Now, that was a Happy Fizzies Party!

This should be self-explanatory…

I thought The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore got off to a decent start last night. They've got a way to go before folks will see the show as an acceptable replacement for The Colbert Report but I can see them getting there. The opening monologue-type material was certainly in the ballpark.

I was a bit disappointed with Jon Stewart's interview with Mike Huckabee, though less so this morning when I watched the Extended Version, which was about six minutes longer. (I was also impressed with how skillfully and fairly they chopped it down for the broadcast version.)

In case you couldn't guess, I think Huckabee — another one of those Republicans I liked before he began pandering to the L.C.D. of his party — is full of it. I haven't read his book but Stewart had and he clearly felt Huckabee, upon being challenged in front of an audience that doesn't buy the theory of Conservative Victimhood, was backing off on what he'd written. Personally, I think the main way in which right-wing folks are victims these days is how folks like Mike Huckabee try to sell them on the idea that they're victims.

I suspect some who watched the interview were expecting/hoping Stewart would try to rebut Huckabee by bringing up certain incidents which suggest, or could be sold as, examples of Huckabee not being the most effective parent. That's not how Jon Stewart rolls. He challenges guests like this just enough that they'll continue to engage with him and only be uncomfy when they say things that the audience audibly does not buy. Anyway, it was a more interesting conversation in the longer version so you might want to give it a look.

Mark's taking Monday off from heavy blogging but I'll post something later. I have a script that needs finishing.

My TiVo and I are looking forward to the debut this evening of The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore. I always found Mr. Wilmore very amusing on The Daily Show and recently I saw him performing his magic act (!) at the Magic Castle up in Hollywood. The magic was fine. The patter was better.

Boomerang is running a marathon of The Garfield Show all day today. I still have no idea when that channel or its sister enterprise, Cartoon Network, will run all the episodes they have that have never been run in this country.

The first issue of Groo: Friends and Foes (#1 in a twelve-issue series) goes on sale this Wednesday. Hope everyone's as happy with it as we are.

Back later when the script's done.

I posted this here on 6/23/04. It's about I Love Lucy, though a line at the end of the second paragraph may make you think it's about The Cosby Show…

My TiVo has been recording I Love Lucy lately, whether I want it to or not. This morn, I watched three and was struck with how incredibly horrible Lucy and Ricky Ricardo were to each other in them. Yes, I know these are not supposed to be realistic portrayals of human behavior and yes, I know there are plenty of episodes which show their true affection for each other, usually with regard to forgiving mistakes. But even in the broadest fiction, two people who ostensibly love each other shouldn't ever be lying and plotting against each other and causing deliberate mental anguish. It's amazing how many times I've seen an episode of one these shows and never thought about what was really happening in the scenario.

In the first episode I watched, Lucy — based on very little evidence, including an eavesdropped partial conversation — concludes that Ricky is planning to murder her. She is so nervous that to calm her down, Ricky decides to surreptitiously slip a harmless sleeping potion in her drink…and when she sees him do this, she concludes that it's poison. Question: If you really love someone, wouldn't it take a lot to cause you to believe they were planning to kill you? Would you stay with someone about whom you could ever believe that? Or who would believe that about you? And isn't it kind of nasty to ever slip something into someone else's beverage without their knowledge?

In the second, Lucy wants to be in Ricky's new show and as usual, Ricky doesn't want her in it. She begins feigning insanity to convince Ricky that all that rejection has caused her to snap. When he finds out what she's up to, Ricky decides to teach her a lesson she'll never forget. He brings in an actor friend to play a doctor who convinces Lucy that she has an incurable disease. She suffers greatly until he reveals the hoax. Question: If you love someone, would you try to convince them you were nuts in order to get them to do something against their better judgment? Would you try to convince them they were dying and put them through that agony?

In the one on right now, Lucy and Ricky have a fight. To get her back with Ricky, Ethel decides to wrap Lucy in bandages and tell Ricky that his wife got hit by a bus. At the same time, Ricky and Fred arrange smoke bombs so they can convince Lucy the apartment is on fire and Ricky can rescue her. Question: Do people who love each other really try things like that? (While we're critiquing human behavior here: In the episode, Fred Mertz — who is the landlord, as well as Ricky's co-conspirator, is running through the halls, yelling not only that the building is on fire but that the whole thing may collapse at any moment. Is this a good thing for the landlord to be doing?)

That's three episodes in a row where hoaxes or lack of trust result not just in misperceptions but life-threatening ones. I dunno about you but if I care for someone, I'd kind of like them to not believe that they're about to die.

I guess it's a tribute to the writers and performers of I Love Lucy that we accept their antics as playful, even though a lot of episodes were about this kind of thing. Lucy and Ricky just come off as so adorable and affectionate that we don't let a little thing like murder plots impact our view of them as America's Happy Couple. Hell, watching reruns, we don't even let a little thing like their real-life divorce cloud the image of Lucy and her Cuban hubby. In the same way, no one ever thinks of Ralph Kramden as a guy who was always threatening to belt his wife or Ernie Bilko as a guy who was committing fraud. Ah, such innocent times…

Speaking of those two guys as I was a few days ago here: MeTV is rerunning The Abbott & Costello Show — 52 half-hours that Bud and Lou made in 1952 and 1953 utilizing every time-tested routine they'd used in their careers. I like these shows a lot more than most of the feature films they made. With one or two exceptions, the storylines in their movies were boring things you had to sit through to get to the comedy bits. Here, it's pretty much just the comedy bits…and they don't have the over-rehearsed, edited feel they have in some of the films.

I especially like two of their co-stars. Joe Besser — aka the Third Stooge between Shemp and Curly Joe — plays this demented little person named Stinky. Besser was 45 years old at the time and they dressed him in a Little Lord Fauntleroy suit and had him act like a bratty ten-year-old…and everyone treats him like he really is that age.

There's a famous Hollywood anecdote that allegedly occurred after Abbott and Costello made their early feature, Who Done It? Character actor William Bendix was in it and stole a couple of scenes. At the premiere, Costello supposedly threw a fit and screamed at his producers, "Don't you ever put anybody in one of our movies who's funnier than me again!" I don't think I believe that story but if it's true, Lou got over it by the time they did this series. Joe Besser is funnier than Costello…and just about anyone else.

I also really like watching a gent named Sidney Fields who plays Bud and Lou's landlord and many other roles in the TV series. Fields was one of the best straight men in burlesque and he later became a top radio writer who often appeared in sketches, usually as a character named Professor Melonhead. He wrote many episodes of The Abbott & Costello Show and later went on to work for Jackie Gleason.

Here's something interesting. You've all heard Mssrs. Abbott and Costello do their "Who's on First?" routine. Well here, from a 1944 radio special, we have a performance of it by the team of Fields and Costello. Abbott was ill so Sid Fields filled in. It's not the same and it makes you realize that Abbott did more in that routine than just set his partner up to be funny…

Our pal Jerry Beck favors us with The History of the Trix Rabbit. Important stuff.

Warning: If you click the link I'm going to give you, you'll be transported to a website that plays music 24/7 and will play it upon your arrival. It's www.seeburg1000.com, a site that offers the kind of background music one hears in elevators and many stores…lots of lush instrumentals with strings, sometimes playing tunes you kinda recognize. If you're of a certain age or disposition, this may be a nice thing to have playing in the background of your life as you work or play. Or for some, it may be a valuable tool if you ever want to drive certain visitors from your home. Use it as you see fit.